As a Matter of FactCheck.org

National Review Online ^ | January 25, 2005 | Donald Luskin

[nosofar]

It’s a sad commentary on the state of public discourse when you have to fact-check FactCheck.org. But that’s what it’s come to. The non-partisan project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania was a reliable guide to the issues during the last presidential election, even-handedly finding fault and favor with statements made by both candidates. But now that the debate over Social Security reform has gotten increasingly nasty and complex, FactCheck.org seems to have lost its way.

In a posting last week, FactCheck.org asked, “Does Social Security Really Face an $11 Trillion Deficit?” The answer, in the feature’s headline, was: “Bush and Cheney say yes. But actuaries say the figure is ‘likely to mislead’ the public on the system’s true financial state.”

It’s that headline that is “likely to mislead.” And you can be sure that the opponents of reform will seize on it to do just that — mislead. That headline gives the impression that the $11 trillion deficit is a number created by Bush and Cheney in defiance of expert advice to the contrary. In reality, Bush and Cheney are simply quoting an official deficit estimate of the Trustees of the Social Security Trust Fund in their 2003 and 2004 annual reports.

The trustees relied on the work of actuaries to come up with that deficit estimate. So, to be fair, the headline should have read, “Actuaries say yes. But other actuaries say the figure is ‘likely to mislead’ the public ... ” But that wouldn’t be an exciting headline, would it? Battling actuaries is about as dull as, well — it’s just about the dullest thing in the world.

[yarddog]

I have also noticed that Snopes.com will sometimes make a pronouncement of fact when they really can't support it, or there is equal evidence to support the other point of view.

[atomicpossum]

Great. So this argument is coming down to which 75-YEAR forecast of government economists is accurate? I'd sooner place my faith in Miss Cleo.

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

They really weren't that great during the election either. They got two new partisan staffers and that was the end of their value.

[munchtipq]

I dunno, I loved factcheck.org all through the campaign. I was even excited when Cheney referenced it during the VP debate, even though he mistakenly said factcheck.com. I thought they did a pretty good job all around. Obviously there are going to be mistakes, no one's perfect, but I love to see how cherry-picked some of the numbers that politicians use are. I'm a Democrat, and because I read factcheck.org, I would cringe whenever Kerry kept bringing up the dollar figure he was using for Iraq, because factcheck.org had done the numbers breakdown on it and shown why that figure was misleading. I was shocked that he never got that back in his face in the debates. All this was before I really got into reading freerepublic.com, of course. There's a good amount of fact checking that goes on here, too. I still like factcheck.org, though.

[lowbridge]

bump

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

You sound sincere and honest, so I do not mean to be rude. But you said, "I'm a Democrat.." which in my opinion is why you were satisfied.

They had a staff change back in June or July. The difference was obvious to me. The VP mentioned them for work they had done prior to the staff turnover.

[munchtipq]

I can appreciate that. I probably started reading it in March or April, and didn't notice the changeover, but as you suggest, it's harder to notice when a bias tips a bit towards your personal bias.